Is Teaching The Great Apostasy Attacking Other Faiths?

[blueadept]

It depends on how the teaching is done. If one uses the teaching to start bashing another faiths belief system, doctrines, leaders then yes it can be. However it if just simply to tell the story of the restoration and what the LDS Church is based on then no its not an attack. Now for those who assert that it is an attack then let me ask two question.

1. How do you propose the LDS to teach the First Vision, Restoration of the Priesthood, and other things associated with the overal restoration of the Church without speaking of the Apostasy?

2. How would you advise us to teach the Apostasy that would not constitute an "attack" on other faiths in your mind?

I would say these are fair and excellent questions. Here's my thought when I was introduced to the missionary lessons and why I didn't care for the approach and what would have been a better approach for me.

The opening part of the history of JS was given to me to read and then to simply pray if JS was a true prophet where JS was told not to follow any existing church. Now simply having an interest in religion, I already have some preconceived ideas about JS but I've already been asked to pray about him. There are already over 30,000 different religions out there and I have one thought about that. Do I believe the members of all these different faiths believe they are following the promptings of the Holy Spirit? My thought is that they think they are. My thought is that this is not a good approach since I'm comparing what my personal thoughts is versus what the missionaries have told me for the last 15 minutes. Hmmm......

So the missionaries discuss the need for a Restoration of God's Church, the need for JS and his 1st Vision, and the bible distinctly says no one can see God's face, unless you read the JST. Hmmm.....

So either the LDS have it right, which means the rest of Christianity have it wrong......now. Since I'm viewing this as one side is right, the other side must be wrong. I have no problem of construing this as "an attack" on my faith since this is the way it was presented. Since I can't defend my own church very well, I ask my TBM wife to be patient with me while I learn what it truly means to be a Catholic before I can honestly do what the missionaries ask me to do and pray about it. Needless to say I'm now know Heavenly Fathers plan calling for me and I'm content with my faith.

IMO, this would have been a better approach.

The missionaries are the most recognizable thing most non-LDS recognize. The #1 thing instead, should be the good works and showing your love for one another. So the investigator comes wanting to know more because of the positives they see and not the perspective of 'gee, what are you pushing on me.' The missionaries can now share their testimonies of why they believe they are following God's calling for them.

Now explaining the Restoration, First Vision, BoM comes from an open mind for the investigator since they want to know more of why LDS do the good things that they do.

Current approach put me in a rather defensive mode.

My suggestion would of had me in a inquisitive mode.

Just my story

[Paul Ray]

The opening part of the history of JS was given to me to read and then to simply pray if JS was a true prophet where JS was told not to follow any existing church. Now simply having an interest in religion, I already have some preconceived ideas about JS but I've already been asked to pray about him. There are already over 30,000 different religions out there and I have one thought about that. Do I believe the members of all these different faiths believe they are following the promptings of the Holy Spirit? My thought is that they think they are. My thought is that this is not a good approach since I'm comparing what my personal thoughts is versus what the missionaries have told me for the last 15 minutes. Hmmm......

In a nutshell, the missionaries told you what they believe, personally, and then they asked you to ask our Father in heaven... about that issue.

They said [so and so] about Joseph Smith, and then asked you to ask God about Joseph Smith... instead of simply going around and seeing what other people think about Joseph Smith.

I think the best approach is to simply ask God.

So either the LDS have it right, which means the rest of Christianity have it wrong......now. Since I'm viewing this as one side is right, the other side must be wrong. I have no problem of construing this as "an attack" on my faith since this is the way it was presented.

Why do you consider what the missionaries asked you to do... ask God about it... an attack on your faith?

If you were to tell them you did ask God about it... about Joseph Smith, specifically... they would let you believe what you wanted.

If you agreed with them/us on that issue, and you knew God agreed too, then you would likely soon become a member, and if you did not agree, and said God didn't either, they would leave you alone with what you wanted to believe.

Where in this are you seeing an attack?

Since I can't defend my own church very well, I ask my TBM wife to be patient with me while I learn what it truly means to be a Catholic before I can honestly do what the missionaries ask me to do and pray about it. Needless to say I'm now know Heavenly Fathers plan calling for me and I'm content with my faith.

IMO, this would have been a better approach.

We (LDS) will let you believe what you want to believe.

We just ask you if you want to hear what we have to tell you.

Current approach put me in a rather defensive mode.

My suggestion would of had me in a inquisitive mode.

I think it is better to act, instead of simply reacting. You can be how you want to be, always.

[oats]

Although I'll have to assume a lot, I'll take the chance.

I don't think that the LDS teach the great apostacy to attack others' beliefs. If you'll notice the lesson (The Restoration) where the apostacy shows up, it is only trying to establish a fairly obvious pattern that shows up in the scriptures. The pattern of people falling away from the truth and returning. It is a pretty simplistic explanation of a recurring theme in the Holy Bible and it draws attention to one of the main reasons God calls the prophets - to guide people to righteousness and restore lost gospel truths.

The lesson is setup to help people who have not read the entire Holy Bible recognize this pattern. It leads into why Joseph was called as a prophet. I suppose an amount of time spent on the Great Apostacy is because most people know something about the dark ages, the reformers etc..

It is not to 'attack' another organization but to built up understanding for the important point the missionaries want to make - that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet to restore the organization of the Church and the fulness of the gospel.

There is a difference in the perceived attack of that approach and the perceived attack of immunizing people against listening to the message of the missionaries. I think the validity of the 'attack' label lies in the purpose behind the message.

Reading through some comments on this thread I realize that people might get offended at hearing about the recent Great Apostacy because it may seem like an attack on their beliefs, even if that is far from the purpose.

I once conversed with a Catholic apologist... I guess you could say... on my mission. The thing that impressed me was his purpose was not to discredit what I believed, but to teach me what he believed. He taught why he believed the Catholic Church had the priesthood authority and keys, and no other Church had them. I could have taken it as an attack on the validity of my beliefs, or listened the the message he was trying to teach me. Obviously there is some conflict regarding the teachings of the two churches and any discussion of doctrine could lead to a 'perceived' attack.

Anyways, I think we should consider the purposes of why some things are taught before we consider them attacks. And even if we do feel 'attacked' we should figure out if the 'attack' was aimed to hurt, or to teach. There is no way to teach the restoration without saying there was something that was lost. Indirectly that will 'attack' (depending on what the listened is intent on hearing) a person of another faith.

[blueadept]

In a nutshell, the missionaries told you what they believe, personally, and then they asked you to ask our Father in heaven... about that issue.

They said [so and so] about Joseph Smith, and then asked you to ask God about Joseph Smith... instead of simply going around and seeing what other people think about Joseph Smith.

With my dad being raised LDS and converted to Catholicism and half my relatives LDS, I didn't have to go around very hard and see what others thought. I knew I had a skewed sense of Mormonism since all my uncles and aunts were working on marriage #2 or #3, or my one uncle who is up to #18. I realized I had more to work out than the typical investigator, but for my TBM wife's sake, I wanted to "try" to listen to the LDS side.

I think the best approach is to simply ask God.

we could both ask God if Jesus was married or not or if he had a younger brother and I think we would get two different responses. Sorry.

Why do you consider what the missionaries asked you to do... ask God about it... an attack on your faith?

I thought I already explained this. At this point of the missionary visit, I haven't been told anything good......yet, but I've already I've been told of the "Apostasy." Hmmm...... at this point, one side is right and the other one is wrong. But according to you, I shouldn't perceive that's not a back hand saying 'your church messed up. Okay. I can see both sides of this but I'm just explaining the order it was given.

If you were to tell them you did ask God about it... about Joseph Smith, specifically... they would let you believe what you wanted.

agreed.

If you agreed with them/us on that issue, and you knew God agreed too, then you would likely soon become a member, and if you did not agree, and said God didn't either, they would leave you alone with what you wanted to believe.

Obviously I chose to investigate on my own about all this and make sure I used pro-Mormon stuff (One of the reasons I'm on this board) to make my decision about my wife's faith. After truly trying to understand my wife's faith (good and bad) and truly trying to understand my own faith (good and bad), yes I prayed about it.

Where in this are you seeing an attack?

Like I said in an earlier post. It would have been nice to break down this poll from LDS to non-LDS. One thing I learn everyday from this board and in my home, I seem to approach each issue from the opposite perspective. LDS do not perceive it as attacking, most non-LDS do.

We (LDS) will let you believe what you want to believe.

Thank goodness otherwise my mixed-faith household wouldn't be doing as well as it is.

Peace

[soren]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no such "training" as you imagine to happen. Or if you want to call it training, it works like this:

1) The missionary spends a few weeks in the MTC, learning how to teach the missionary lessons from the Scriptures.

2) The missionary then goes into the mission field and is assigned to a senior companion.

3) The missionary and his companion commence to work.

4) A person they are teaching brings up an objection.

5) The senior companion responds to that objection as his senior companion had on a previous occasion.

6) The junior companion remembers it and, next time he encounters an objection that sounds similar to the one he's just heard refuted, he repeats what he heard.

There's the "training," if you insist on calling it that.

I am not surprised that that is how it works. I have noticed that in every encounter with missionaries, the junior companion starts off with the lesson, but as soon as controversy emerges the senior companion takes over. That discipline makes a lot of sense.

But I have definitely been faced with rebuttals that were clearly thought out and honed, in the field if not in the classroom. In one discussion about the Great Apostasy, I cited Matt. 16:18 to show that Christ is the builder of his church in support of the claim that the church cannot fail. The senior elder quickly fired out an argument about why Peter's testimony, not Peter himself, was the Rock referred to by Christ in that verse. That is actually such a reasonable argument, that I am in the minority of Catholics who accepts that reading. Thus I found it striking that the rebuttal countered a different point from the one I was making or even would make. The obvious explanation is that the missionary knew that Matt. 16:18 is a verse used by Catholics and had prepared a response to it, although he fumbled in my case by mistaking my purpose in using it.

Do you believe missionaries should be discouraged from using any counters to verses quoted in opposition to their claims? If you don't, are you not allowing for refutation in the ministry?

Thank you, but why is the difference in usage particularly our fault? Why is it not just as much your own?

Every faith community has its own shared vocabulary, and few of the terms therein are actually unique words. Rather, they are just common words that have gained special meanings of their own in a given cultural context. This is not any sort of plot; we don't say "separate and distinct" just to confound the creedalists any more than we hold "firesides" just so we can have a good guffaw at the expense of the fellow who is naive enough to show up with a mug and a bag of marshmallows.

I'm sure God does; but alas, we poor mortals here below have to make do with our allotted span of threescore and ten, which is nowhere near enough time to learn all the intricacies of every doctrinal system out there and do our part in preaching the Gospel.

It is true that one does not have to master every nuance. Expertise is not the necessary standard, but accuracy about the basics is. I think the misunderstandings of Orthodox doctrine common in the LDS Church are on a foundational level. Just the other day one of the participants at this forum told me that God, "by your own definition" is a "nothingness." Now, that word has been used and attributed to traditional Christianity by LDS apostles, Elder Bruce McConkie being one. (I would give you a refernce from Mormon Doctrine, but my copy is packed just now for my upcoming move. I recall he says something at least touching on that under the Atheism heading, where he identified "immaterialism" as a form of atheism.) Now, because LDS Theology reduces all existence to matter, "Nonbeing" may justly express an LDS apprisal of what the Catholic God amounts to, but it in no way reflects the actual concept of God that a Catholic would accept. Yet this distinction is ignored by Elder McConkie, and was, not surprising, unknown to one (not all, just one) LDS missionary I have spoken with. I once stunned my father-in-law by denying that God is a "nonbeing." This is basic stuff, and one does not have to master Thomistic theology to get past this kind of error. There is no question in my mind that the LDS Church propagates it actively, by implication if not by direct statement, and I submit Elder McConkie as evidence.

As for "separate and distinct," it is hard to not see a method in the LDS use of these terms. The distinction between these two concepts is old in Christendom, and is indeed the second most essential distinction that must be made in teaching the Trinity. Can it really be coincidence that the interchangeable use of the terms is propagated so consistently at all levels of the LDS Church? Without demanding any expertise, a basic outline of the Trinity could be written in 10 pages. The outline I wrote for my own presentations is only four pages long and could be reduced to two. I have taught it to 12-year-olds.

And yet there is no evidence that anyone ever did. In the famous near-riot at Ephesus, there is not one word about the Christians "exposing the errors" of the cult of Artemis, or "speaking the truth in love" (anti-Mormon slogan for unscrupulously propagandising) at her worshippers. But there is valid evidence to the contrary:

Acts 19

37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

The same, not only in word but in principle, can be said for the Latter-day Saints. Pity it cannot be said for our detractors.

As you observe, this refers to events in Ephesus and not Paul's doings at Athens, although with regards to the saints in Ephesus I see this is a meaningful point.

You are also correct about the hypocrisy often adjoined to "speaking the truth in love." You may find it worth noting that the cold-hearted souls who picket your temples often show up at Catholic events, although in a lesser presence. (I think there is less matter in Catholicism to excite their prurient interests.) I once saw a guy at a Catholic family conference in L.A. with a sign that read, "Christendom REPENT and turn from the Devil's Apostasy!" I saw that he wasn't winning any converts, so I went and spoke to him. After a few pleasantries, I asked him why he was holding the sign and after a bit more discussion he said something like "I love Catholics and that is why I have to tell them that Mary isn't a goddess and the Pope is the Anti-Christ." And this guy was a lot nicer than what I have seen in films and photos from outside General Conferences.

Really?

To someone with a polemical bent, maybe that's what it looks like; but calling them "too superstitious" (i.e. "most religious") didn't bother them in the least, and no more did the conventional old "God dwelleth not in temples made with hands," a standard school maxim.

They were the intelligentsia of the day, and knew (and accepted) all the usual arguments against idolatry. It wasn't until Paul mentioned the resurrection (v. 31) that they hooted in derision (v. 32.)

The stoics and the epicureans were intelligentsia indeed, but they were not the only audience there. And Paul still does argue against idolatry. Even if the argument is standard, it is surely not given for the benefit of those present who already reject such worship.

So he did. And was Elymas struck blind while harmlessly going about his own business of preaching a competing doctrine, or was he behaving like the predecessors of the anti-Mormons, by directly opposing the Lord's servants?

I do not use Elymas as an example if what Mormons are, but as an example of a stumbling-block. I do not oppose you for harming me or anyone. I oppose your ideas for harming you. In my analogy, the doctrines, not you, are Elymas.

More than that; he is not asking us to aggressively proclaim our reasons for thinking the other fellow is wrong; he is asking us to give "an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you."

I have not advocated aggression. That is why I will not go around disputing with people when I am in Temple Square next month. I limit myself to this forum, which is constructed for that purpose, and to such opportunities as naturally arise, like the occasional run-in with the missionaries, whom I normally make friends with even in the course of disputation. I have more than blood-letting in mind when I talk to them, I promise you.

I do not suppose that we are alone in following the example of the ancient Saints, namely, proclaiming our own message without reference to the beliefs of others; we are just alone among those who choose to dispute with us.

I do not believe that is the example of the ancient saints. Disputation is part of evangelism. Consider how, when Paul preached to the Jews, he addressed them on their own terms, refuting them from the scriptures in Acts 18:27-28:

And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

The KJV translation of this verse is too dated for its full meaning to appear to a modern reader. The Greek word that the KJV translates as â??convincedâ? is diakatelegchomai, which actually means â??refutedâ? or even better â??thoroughly refuted.â? (In 1616, â??convincedâ? had this meaning, but no so much today.)

And refutation is not an employment reserved only to Paul. In Titus 1:9, Paulâ??s instructions about the behavior of a bishop say that he must be â??Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.â? (***. 1:9) Again, the KJV says uses â??to convinceâ? in the sense of â??to refuteâ? and translates the Greek elegchein, which is a less emphatic form of the verb used in Act 18:28.

Now I do not believe it is everyoneâ??s duty to master other teachings for refutation. It is a job for the mature and the educated, whence it makes sense that the verse above is advice for bishops. Nor do I think disputation is an evangelist's primary task Prayer, moral example, discipline, obedience to true authority â?? all of these and many more things belong to the gospel and its preaching. But confutation is also a valid part of it.

I'm sorry, but you are pushing your argument to extremes there.

It is extreme, but it true. Straw man argumentation is a species of slander, but a subtle one.

The notion that we have to get down to the minutiae of your doctrines before we have a right to disagree with you or else we are liars is an exercise in truly jesuitical sophistry. At the end of the day, the only really important thing we need to know about your doctrines is that they are not ours, and therefore we don't proclaim them.

I don't claim you must learn the minutiae. It is the basics that I find misrepresented, and I have offered good examples of this.

As I have explained above, the "methods of instruction" you deplore exist only in your imagination.

Well then, you should be satisfied. We operate upon the moral principle that every believer is entitled to speak for his own belief, and not have some self-appointed expert who does not share that belief putting himself forward to speak for him.

We will not be teaching their doctrines at all. We are just not that damnably arrogant.

It is not arrogant to teach a doctrine that is not your own if you know it well and do it right. I studied Karl Marx with a professor who is a libertarian. Was he arrogant to explain Communism since it was someone's else's belief? He was an expert. If accurate representation and a willingness to amend errors is embraced by the teacher, there is no arrogance in it. It must be done carefully. What is arrogant is to substitute one's own judgment of another belief for the explanation a true believer would give, without distinguishing the two. That is not just arrogant. It is contemptuous.

As moral principles go, that is clearly superior to the notion that we should devote ourselves to studying the other fellow's doctrine so that we can refute it properly.

Since the alternative to study is ignorance, this is a slight moral principle.

[soren]

Although I'll have to assume a lot, I'll take the chance.

I don't think that the LDS teach the great apostacy to attack others' beliefs. If you'll notice the lesson (The Restoration) where the apostacy shows up, it is only trying to establish a fairly obvious pattern that shows up in the scriptures. The pattern of people falling away from the truth and returning. It is a pretty simplistic explanation of a recurring theme in the Holy Bible and it draws attention to one of the main reasons God calls the prophets - to guide people to righteousness and restore lost gospel truths.

The lesson is setup to help people who have not read the entire Holy Bible recognize this pattern. It leads into why Joseph was called as a prophet. I suppose an amount of time spent on the Great Apostacy is because most people know something about the dark ages, the reformers etc..

It is not to 'attack' another organization but to built up understanding for the important point the missionaries want to make - that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet to restore the organization of the Church and the fulness of the gospel.

There is a difference in the perceived attack of that approach and the perceived attack of immunizing people against listening to the message of the missionaries. I think the validity of the 'attack' label lies in the purpose behind the message.

Reading through some comments on this thread I realize that people might get offended at hearing about the recent Great Apostacy because it may seem like an attack on their beliefs, even if that is far from the purpose.

I once conversed with a Catholic apologist... I guess you could say... on my mission. The thing that impressed me was his purpose was not to discredit what I believed, but to teach me what he believed. He taught why he believed the Catholic Church had the priesthood authority and keys, and no other Church had them. I could have taken it as an attack on the validity of my beliefs, or listened the the message he was trying to teach me. Obviously there is some conflict regarding the teachings of the two churches and any discussion of doctrine could lead to a 'perceived' attack.

Anyways, I think we should consider the purposes of why some things are taught before we consider them attacks. And even if we do feel 'attacked' we should figure out if the 'attack' was aimed to hurt, or to teach. There is no way to teach the restoration without saying there was something that was lost. Indirectly that will 'attack' (depending on what the listened is intent on hearing) a person of another faith.

Though I reject the Great Apostasy as a doctrine, I believe your comments here reflect a healthy spirit.

[Pahoran]

I am not surprised that that is how it works. I have noticed that in every encounter with missionaries, the junior companion starts off with the lesson, but as soon as controversy emerges the senior companion takes over. That discipline makes a lot of sense.

Yes, and it supports what I was telling you: the actual structured "training" received by both senior and junior alike, covers the lessons. The rest is "experience in the field," and as such is largely out of the Church's control.

But I have definitely been faced with rebuttals that were clearly thought out and honed, in the field if not in the classroom. In one discussion about the Great Apostasy, I cited Matt. 16:18 to show that Christ is the builder of his church in support of the claim that the church cannot fail. The senior elder quickly fired out an argument about why Peter's testimony, not Peter himself, was the Rock referred to by Christ in that verse. That is actually such a reasonable argument, that I am in the minority of Catholics who accepts that reading. Thus I found it striking that the rebuttal countered a different point from the one I was making or even would make. The obvious explanation is that the missionary knew that Matt. 16:18 is a verse used by Catholics and had prepared a response to it, although he fumbled in my case by mistaking my purpose in using it.

Again, this is field experience. You are highly unlikely to have been the first person ever to cite the old "gates of hell" chestnut in the hearing of that missionary. The fact that he responded, not to your more subtle usage of it, but to the way it is more commonly used, in fact supports my earlier argument: if only a few better-informed creedalists, such as yourself, notice that we are getting your teachings wrong, then by what do you conclude that "vulgar Christians," to coin a phrase, cannot possibly play a part in our misapprehensions? This is parallel, I believe, to an earlier incarnation of the Book of Abraham controversy; at a time when most critics were denouncing that document as a product of Joseph's overheated imagination, the great S. G. F. Brandon sneered that Joseph must have worked it up as a pastiche cribbed from various apocryphal works. Why the difference? Because he alone recognised the parallels to those works; none of the other critics even knew they existed, let alone what was in them.

So when you see our missionaries, who have never been trained in "refuting the gentiles" and never will be, responding to your criticisms in ways that don't accurately reflect what you believe, I suggest that before you go imagining some godless conspiracy of error intended to blind the minds of the ignorant, you first consider the possibility that they are simply going from what they've experienced. If you doubt it, then maybe you should ask some of those vulgar Christians to explain the trinity to you before you've taught it to them. You may find reasons to reconsider your conspiracy theory.

Do you believe missionaries should be discouraged from using any counters to verses quoted in opposition to their claims? If you don't, are you not allowing for refutation in the ministry?

Of course I don't, and of course I am. But this is merely as an adjunct to the main business, which is affirmatively proclaiming our teachings. This is materially and qualitatively different from going after other churches and their teachings. That is what we don't (and won't) do. Not because we can't, but because it is beneath us as Christians.

It is true that one does not have to master every nuance. Expertise is not the necessary standard, but accuracy about the basics is. I think the misunderstandings of Orthodox doctrine common in the LDS Church are on a foundational level. Just the other day one of the participants at this forum told me that God, "by your own definition" is a "nothingness." Now, that word has been used and attributed to traditional Christianity by LDS apostles, Elder Bruce McConkie being one. (I would give you a refernce from Mormon Doctrine, but my copy is packed just now for my upcoming move. I recall he says something at least touching on that under the Atheism heading, where he identified "immaterialism" as a form of atheism.)

So he does. There are a number of good reasons why Bruce's Doctrine has no official standing, despite its popularity as a reference work. Note, please, that he was not an apostle when he wrote it. Part of that "accuracy about the basics," as applied to LDS thought, is that a person's subsequent calling does not add weight or prestige to his previous writings. Whenever we cite a current or former LDS authority, we always cite him by the honorific and/or position he held at the time of the utterance or writing in question.

Now, because LDS Theology reduces all existence to matter, "Nonbeing" may justly express an LDS apprisal of what the Catholic God amounts to, but it in no way reflects the actual concept of God that a Catholic would accept. Yet this distinction is ignored by Elder McConkie, and was, not surprising, unknown to one (not all, just one) LDS missionary I have spoken with. I once stunned my father-in-law by denying that God is a "nonbeing." This is basic stuff, and one does not have to master Thomistic theology to get past this kind of error. There is no question in my mind that the LDS Church propagates it actively, by implication if not by direct statement, and I submit Elder McConkie as evidence.

There may be no question in your mind; but as an active, faithful, participating, experienced Latter-day Saint, there is a considerable question in mine.

Soren, I enjoy your contributions. But if we are going to keep this civil, then I must insist that you refrain from trying to tell me what my church teaches. I can only conclude that you are unaware of the utter incivility of that approach. I will tell you what my church teaches; and you are at all times free to tell me what your church teaches. That is the demarcation line. Let's both keep on our proper sides of that.

As for "separate and distinct," it is hard to not see a method in the LDS use of these terms. The distinction between these two concepts is old in Christendom, and is indeed the second most essential distinction that must be made in teaching the Trinity. Can it really be coincidence that the interchangeable use of the terms is propagated so consistently at all levels of the LDS Church?

Perhaps not. But the "method" would seem to serve only to distinguish LDS thought from creedal trinitarianism; it is not a devious plot to deceive the masses, if that is what you were thinking.

Without demanding any expertise, a basic outline of the Trinity could be written in 10 pages. The outline I wrote for my own presentations is only four pages long and could be reduced to two. I have taught it to 12-year-olds.

While our doctrine can be expressed in just 18 words:

"We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." I'm sorry, but maybe we just don't have the attention span to learn about the philosophical concept of ousia and all of its attendant ramifications, to get the significance of that "iota of difference" between the disputing parties at Nicea. This is of interest to me, as a matter of intellectual history, but it has nothing whatever to do with the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ.

As you observe, this refers to events in Ephesus and not Paul's doings at Athens, although with regards to the saints in Ephesus I see this is a meaningful point.

You are also correct about the hypocrisy often adjoined to "speaking the truth in love." You may find it worth noting that the cold-hearted souls who picket your temples often show up at Catholic events, although in a lesser presence. (I think there is less matter in Catholicism to excite their prurient interests.)

That's very generous of you. Frankly I think they are mostly just too gutless to go after you. Although we have to give Mr. Chick his due; he'll lie about anybody.

I once saw a guy at a Catholic family conference in L.A. with a sign that read, "Christendom REPENT and turn from the Devil's Apostasy!" I saw that he wasn't winning any converts, so I went and spoke to him. After a few pleasantries, I asked him why he was holding the sign and after a bit more discussion he said something like "I love Catholics and that is why I have to tell them that Mary isn't a goddess and the Pope is the Anti-Christ." And this guy was a lot nicer than what I have seen in films and photos from outside General Conferences.

As a side note, are you familiar with the urban legend about the legal contract, found in the Vatican, signed by the Pope and Satan?

The stoics and the epicureans were intelligentsia indeed, but they were not the only audience there.

Well, as I understand it, the Areopagus was a learned assembly. Those who attended its meetings were either the "great minds" or those who listened to them enough to follow the level of discourse.

And Paul still does argue against idolatry. Even if the argument is standard, it is surely not given for the benefit of those present who already reject such worship.

It's not altogether obvious that Paul's visit there was all that successful. He doesn't seem to have used that technique again.

I do not use Elymas as an example if what Mormons are, but as an example of a stumbling-block. I do not oppose you for harming me or anyone. I oppose your ideas for harming you. In my analogy, the doctrines, not you, are Elymas.

Well thank you for my share of the favour, but I don't agree about the "harm." Incidentally, this is perhaps the key difference between positive witnessing, and negative "attack" oriented witnessing. I very much appreciate your irenic tone and courteous manner, but at the end of the day, if you can't invite me to take a look at what Catholicism has to offer without first telling me what's wrong with Mormonism, then you are essentially in the same camp as the street screechers. Vastly more polite, far better informed, but still in their camp.

I have not advocated aggression. That is why I will not go around disputing with people when I am in Temple Square next month. I limit myself to this forum, which is constructed for that purpose, and to such opportunities as naturally arise, like the occasional run-in with the missionaries, whom I normally make friends with even in the course of disputation. I have more than blood-letting in mind when I talk to them, I promise you.

I don't doubt it for a minute.

I do not believe that is the example of the ancient saints. Disputation is part of evangelism. Consider how, when Paul preached to the Jews, he addressed them on their own terms, refuting them from the scriptures in Acts 18:27-28:

And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

The KJV translation of this verse is too dated for its full meaning to appear to a modern reader. The Greek word that the KJV translates as â??convincedâ? is diakatelegchomai, which actually means â??refutedâ? or even better â??thoroughly refuted.â? (In 1616, â??convincedâ? had this meaning, but no so much today.)

Indeed, but what has this to do with attack witnessing?

And refutation is not an employment reserved only to Paul. In Titus 1:9, Paulâ??s instructions about the behavior of a bishop say that he must be â??Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.â? (***. 1:9) Again, the KJV says uses â??to convinceâ? in the sense of â??to refuteâ? and translates the Greek elegchein, which is a less emphatic form of the verb used in Act 18:28.

Yes, and a bishop has certain responsibilities towards his flock. It is not obvious to me that he has those same responsibities towards everyone he encounters, though. A church leader, to be a leader, has to exercise leadership, which includes correcting those under his jurisdiction. This is not the same as attacking those who follow other faiths.

Now I do not believe it is everyoneâ??s duty to master other teachings for refutation. It is a job for the mature and the educated, whence it makes sense that the verse above is advice for bishops. Nor do I think disputation is an evangelist's primary task Prayer, moral example, discipline, obedience to true authority â?? all of these and many more things belong to the gospel and its preaching. But confutation is also a valid part of it.

Confutation of other faiths? I'm unaware of anything that provides a useful model for that, Paul in the Areopagus notwithstanding. Take away him affirmatively teaching Christian doctrine, and he says nothing.

It is extreme, but it true. Straw man argumentation is a species of slander, but a subtle one.

I don't claim you must learn the minutiae. It is the basics that I find misrepresented, and I have offered good examples of this.

It's not a straw man if people have actually made arguments against us that relied upon what you are pleased to call the "misrepresented" versions. (And they have.)

Your examples seem to rest upon the assumption that it's all about you. (Hint: it isn't.) If missionaries respond in a certain way to the use of certain scriptures, it's because that's how they are used to those scriptures being prooftexted.

It is not arrogant to teach a doctrine that is not your own if you know it well and do it right. I studied Karl Marx with a professor who is a libertarian. Was he arrogant to explain Communism since it was someone's else's belief? He was an expert. If accurate representation and a willingness to amend errors is embraced by the teacher, there is no arrogance in it.

Sure, but we are not talking about an academic exercise in the history of ideas here. This is either an interfaith dialogue, or it is not. If believers don't present their own beliefs then it is not; and if it is not, then it is polemics. We don't do polemics.

It must be done carefully. What is arrogant is to substitute one's own judgment of another belief for the explanation a true believer would give, without distinguishing the two. That is not just arrogant. It is contemptuous.

And around here, that happens a lot.

Since the alternative to study is ignorance, this is a slight moral principle.

Well, it comes back to what we have time for. We don't have time to teach other doctrines to our missionaries before sending them out; that is not our mission anyhow. In the last analysis, you are trying to tell us what should be important to us in the conduct of one of our core religious activities.

And you really shouldn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

Soren, I enjoy your contributions. But if we are going to keep this civil, then I must insist that you refrain from trying to tell me what my church teaches. I can only conclude that you are unaware of the utter incivility of that approach. I will tell you what my church teaches; and you are at all times free to tell me what your church teaches. That is the demarcation line.

I don't think so. There are plenty of life long LDS who know less about what the church teaches ( to the extent that there is even a fact of the matter) than many who study the church from outside.

The teachings of the church are publically avialable and so the right to make statements about the beliefs of Mormons goes to anyone who has taken the time to study it.

There is nothing uncivil about it.

For example, I have statue of shiva in my office. A hindu student tried to tell me that it wasn't shiva at all.

I was willing to hear him out but it turns out he was wrong. Of course he could have told me that since he was hindu he alone had the right to declare it. But again, I don't think so.

On top of that, anyone who frequents this board will have long ago realized that there is a great deal of disagreement among the member themselves on the topic of what the LDS church really teaches on important matters such as the nature of God, Adam, Spirit, Matter, evolution and which statements of past prophets are to be taken as binding.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So, do you think that teaching the great apostasy is attacking other faiths? Does it provide justification for Christian critics who actively oppose the Church?

No more than teaching about the death of Christ is anti-semetic.

Pa Pa

[rhinomelon]

No more than teaching about the death of Christ is anti-semetic.

I don't believe this comparison is a good one. It is a corruption of the teaching of the atonement of Christ that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic; that is not the point of the teaching. On the other hand, when the Great Apostasy is correctly interpreted, it leads to a conclusion that many mainstream Christians believe to be an attack. The Great Apostasy must lead to that specific conclusion (that all other churches are apostate and corrupt and bereft of any divine authority), otherwise the whole LDS enterprise is pointless.

Take care, everyone

[mexbeef]

The First Vision is the best possible refutation of creedal Christianity extant. yahoo!!!!

I was raised Methodist. I never thought they were 3 in 1. I always thought they were separate, mom never told me. Then, I got the big intellectual presentation of the Trinity from a new "intellectual pastor". I could not follow his treatise nor could anybody else. They (traditional Christians) are hung up on maintaining monotheism so they developed this incomprehensible creedal statement. It is very deep........very drowning..

When the mormons came, the fog lifted.

[Pantsman]

Calling other Christians creeds abominations, and claiming there are two Churches, the Church of God (I can only assume this is the Mormon Church), and the Church of the devil (all the rest). Then adding all their professors are corrupt is most definitely a full frontal assault...

[soren]

Yes, and it supports what I was telling you: the actual structured "training" received by both senior and junior alike, covers the lessons. The rest is "experience in the field," and as such is largely out of the Church's control.

Again, this is field experience. You are highly unlikely to have been the first person ever to cite the old "gates of hell" chestnut in the hearing of that missionary.

I know it supports what you told me, and it jives with my experience. That is why I am not claiming "structured" training. I distinguish between what the missionary learns at MTC and what he learns in the field. My only point is that refutation is taught, is done, and is not discouraged in the LDS Church. "By whom" is not the question, only, "Does it happen?" Not that I think it ought to be discouraged. I see no evil in scriptural disputation. I used this example because the missionary's slip revealed in an unsually clear way that he had studied a refutation, and his moral principles did not prevent him from using it. It never occurred to me that I was the first person he had heard that verse from.

I am also not objecting to the way the missionaries train each other at all. I think it is a sensible method.

The fact that he responded, not to your more subtle usage of it, but to the way it is more commonly used, in fact supports my earlier argument: if only a few better-informed creedalists, such as yourself, notice that we are getting your teachings wrong, then by what do you conclude that "vulgar Christians," to coin a phrase, cannot possibly play a part in our misapprehensions?

When did I draw this conclusion? Have I not acknowledged that Catholics often stumble on their own teachings? I have been very forthright here and on other threads that my Church suffers from a neglect of theological education. Like the missionary, you are responding to a misapprehension of my purpose. The whole reason that I always plug Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity is that it is a strong antidote to such ignorance. This, not The Godmakers, is what I recommend to Catholics who ask me about the Latter-day Saints! The book is not even about refutation and has no reference to Mormonism. It is a primer for Catholics who need to know more theology. (If anything, it is anti-atheist, not anti-Mormon.) It's even written by a street evangelist, which I think Latter-day Saints might relate to.

I actually think that most "vulgar Christians" (we prefer to be called "vulgate") can't identify LDS misapprehensions because there is a language barrier in our theological terminology that only a direct study of Mormonism can clarify. The key is to know which words in the Latter-day Saint vocabulary have different meanings from those in the Catholic one. (That is a large part of why I read LDS literature, and what I gain from reading responses to myself on this site. It is not just to learn how to refute, but to articulate things in ways that address the thinking of a Latter-day Saint.)

My real point is that LDS instruction actively encourages misapprehension, and not just on a level of individual followers making blunders, but with a consistency that probably evidences an unofficial institutional policy. This is never done outright. No one says, "The Trinity is modalist." Rather, they simply behave as if it were, and that is enoguh to enforce the presupposition. (More explanation to come)

This is parallel, I believe, to an earlier incarnation of the Book of Abraham controversy; at a time when most critics were denouncing that document as a product of Joseph's overheated imagination, the great S. G. F. Brandon sneered that Joseph must have worked it up as a pastiche cribbed from various apocryphal works. Why the difference? Because he alone recognised the parallels to those works; none of the other critics even knew they existed, let alone what was in them.

Huh? How is this a parallel? You've lost me here.

So when you see our missionaries, who have never been trained in "refuting the gentiles" and never will be, responding to your criticisms in ways that don't accurately reflect what you believe, I suggest that before you go imagining some godless conspiracy of error intended to blind the minds of the ignorant, you first consider the possibility that they are simply going from what they've experienced.

Here I must urge the topic of this thread. The doctrine of the Great Apostasy does attack the validity of my faith. Responding to that claim is always my first approach. (Even on this site, if you look at my posts, you will see that most of the argumentative ones, and definitely my longest posts, are focused on that topic.) I have spent evenings listening to laundry-lists of historical and doctrinal evidences of the Great Apostasy that consisted of nothing but objective fallacies about "Dark Ages," gnostic influence on the Church, scriptural corruption, errors about Catholic teaching, etc. The most recent pair of missionaries I met I spoke to three times, and I spent the first two meetings doing nothing but fielding these lame arguments without even touching on LDS doctrine. In the meantime, I got told that indulgences mean we can buy salvation and that "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" means I mustn't pray to saints. When I claimed that Catholic do not worship saints, they denied it. That's why I wish I had a transcript. It would be VERY hard to make the case that no attack or argument was being made, or that I even started it. It's inherent in the Great Apostasy doctrine, inherent in the First Vision. And whoever it was who might have told that missionary that Trent invented the eucharist, I seriously doubt it was a Catholic.

One thing, however, that I do not do when missionaries make these uninformed attacks, is impute personal malice to them on that basis. Or call them liars. Or say they are dictating my beliefs to me. They are speaking to the best of their knowledge and out of a desire for my welfare, and I give them credit for that. Do you think, because they made these claims, that the missionaries must have had ill will towards me or my fellow Catholics? I would defend these friends of mine against that charge, just as I defend myself when you charge me with attack-witnessing.

If you doubt it, then maybe you should ask some of those vulgar Christians to explain the trinity to you before you've taught it to them. You may find reasons to reconsider your conspiracy theory.

The reason I teach it is because people don't know it. Why do you think this is news to me?

So he does. There are a number of good reasons why Bruce's Doctrine has no official standing, despite its popularity as a reference work. Note, please, that he was not an apostle when he wrote it. Part of that "accuracy about the basics," as applied to LDS thought, is that a person's subsequent calling does not add weight or prestige to his previous writings. Whenever we cite a current or former LDS authority, we always cite him by the honorific and/or position he held at the time of the utterance or writing in question.

I do not cite Elder McConkie to establish LDS Doctrine, but as an example of LDS behavior. This popular book contains a lot of popular errors that get repeated a lot. If commenting on other religions is so far out of step with LDS practices as you say, it is very strange that this book has such prominence even among participants at this site. I am not making a point about Mormon teaching, but about Mormon culture. And I used this example not to nit-pick Elder McConkie, but chose a particular misrepresentation that experiece suggests is widespread in the LDS Church.

And I know Latter-day Saints are not uncritical of Elder McConkie.

There may be no question in your mind; but as an active, faithful, participating, experienced Latter-day Saint, there is a considerable question in mine.

It is conceivable that the habitual misrep is not by design, and I can grant you the benefit of the doubt. In any case, it is there for some reason and the way it works is transparent. Further explanation below.

Soren, I enjoy your contributions. But if we are going to keep this civil, then I must insist that you refrain from trying to tell me what my church teaches. I can only conclude that you are unaware of the utter incivility of that approach. I will tell you what my church teaches; and you are at all times free to tell me what your church teaches. That is the demarcation line. Let's both keep on our proper sides of that.

If we cannot comment on each other's teachings, we cannot even contrast them properly. This does not just stymie debate, it kills discussion.

Perhaps not. But the "method" would seem to serve only to distinguish LDS thought from creedal trinitarianism; it is not a devious plot to deceive the masses, if that is what you were thinking.

That would be true if it were used that way, but it is used more to distinguish it from modalism. It all depends upon what thought-options a person is presented with about "distinction" and "separation." Here is how I think the error is born:

(WARNING: I am about to state an LDS Doctrine. Though I will not attempt to refute it at this time, I will contrast it with my own beliefs in order to clarify the difference.)

Creedalism, as you call it, claims that the persons of God are distinct but not separate, whereas Joseph Smith taught that they are separate and distinct, using, in fact, those very words. This means the Churches agree on distinction, disagree on separation. The meaningfulness of this distinction, however, vanishes when "separate" and "distinct" are consistently used interchangeably. To a learner who does not already know about the difference, this usage creates the impression that the two words espress the same thought, so that to affirm one is to affirm the other, to deny one is to deny the other. This makes modalism - denial of both distinction and separation - seem like the only thinkable alternative to affirming them both. This makes Trinitarian theology sound modalist and, therefore, absurd. It also creates an appearance of disagreement on the subject of "distinction" which does not in fact exist.

I will refrain from speculating further about any motive for it, but that is clearly what happens.

While our doctrine can be expressed in just 18 words:

"We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

There is a difference between a summary statement and a formal exposition on the meaning of the terms in that statement. The doctrine of the Tirnity can also be expressed in one sentence,

"We believe in one God, in three disitinct, equal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

That's 18 words too. The summarization of the this doctrine is the not whole teaching in my case or in yours. Your summary, for instance, does not mention whether the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have a common purpose, or what their bodies might be like, or how they function together, etc. Likewise, my summary here does not contain all the information that a lengthier discussion clarifies. The reason Trinitarian theology requires careful teaching and learning is that it consists of parts, which, if understood only concretely, contradict each other on face. Teaching the doctrine requires first identifying the parts and where they can be discerned in scripture, and then harmonizing them. Finding a harmony among the parts is the challenge and requires a move from concrete to abstract thinking. That move is difficult, but ease of understanding is not a measure of truth. Calculus is harder, yet still true.

I'm sorry, but maybe we just don't have the attention span to learn about the philosophical concept of ousia and all of its attendant ramifications, to get the significance of that "iota of difference" between the disputing parties at Nicea. This is of interest to me, as a matter of intellectual history, but it has nothing whatever to do with the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I don't think Latter-day Saints lack the attention span. I think most of them just don't realize how little they really know about it and thus do nto inquire.

That's very generous of you. Frankly I think they are mostly just too gutless to go after you. Although we have to give Mr. Chick his due; he'll lie about anybody.

As a side note, are you familiar with the urban legend about the legal contract, found in the Vatican, signed by the Pope and Satan?

Actually, it was the Black Pope who signed it.

Well, as I understand it, the Areopagus was a learned assembly. Those who attended its meetings were either the "great minds" or those who listened to them enough to follow the level of discourse.

It's not altogether obvious that Paul's visit there was all that successful. He doesn't seem to have used that technique again.

I think St. Paul's use of the statue "To The Unknown God" is magnificent because he preached under divine inspiration. It is, therefore, impossible that his preaching methods were improper; this includes his refutation of the idols.

Well thank you for my share of the favour, but I don't agree about the "harm."

I don't expect you to agree; I just want my motive to be understood.

Incidentally, this is perhaps the key difference between positive witnessing, and negative "attack" oriented witnessing. I very much appreciate your irenic tone and courteous manner, but at the end of the day, if you can't invite me to take a look at what Catholicism has to offer without first telling me what's wrong with Mormonism, then you are essentially in the same camp as the street screechers. Vastly more polite, far better informed, but still in their camp.

The first reason that I am not in their camp, is that I am interested in converting people. The "street screechers" (that's a great name) are there to indulge some weird desire to ... I'm not sure what. Somehow I think the futility of their methods is part of why they enjoy doing it.

Secondly, I do invite people to look at Catholicism. That is why I plug Theology and Sanity in every post where it is relevant. This forum, because it is very issue-oriented, is not a place for a complete and thorough exposition of the Catholic worldview or even for the Mormon one, but anyone who takes me up on reading that book has an opportunity to learn what they are missing and draw their own conclusions from it. As for "what is wrong with Mormonism," I mostly contest issues regarding the Great Apostasy, since that is where the Catholic Church is on the defensive, not the attack, and where a Christ-honoring claim of uninterreupted priesthood authority can be made. And that authority is a good reason to believe.

It might also interest you to know that my method when I talk to the missionaries is not to debunk. (If I were to list my top 10 most persuasive anti-Mormon arguments, none of the claims I have ever actually made are even on that list, because the strongest negative arguments have no bearing on establishing the true gospel and are therefore irrelevant to my purpose.) In my discussions with missionaries, I reason from marriage. I take off my wedding ring and show the missionaries a word that is written in it: "Christus." My wife shows them the inside of her ring: "Ecclesia." You see, Christ married his Church, and that is why it cannot fall away. After I have fielded their arguments against Christian history, I explain processional Trinitarianism to them and point out what a lofty and sacntified concept of family life we Catholics are able to enjoy: Our God not only has a family, our God is a family and in heaven we will partake of that genuinely infinite nature.

Indeed, but what has this to do with attack witnessing?

I'm not promoting attack witnessing.

Yes, and a bishop has certain responsibilities towards his flock. It is not obvious to me that he has those same responsibities towards everyone he encounters, though. A church leader, to be a leader, has to exercise leadership, which includes correcting those under his jurisdiction. This is not the same as attacking those who follow other faiths.

I thought you might make that point, and it's a good one. Part of why I called attention to the fact that this is advice for bishops is because I think refutation is something to be done with restraint. Not for everyone, and not for all opccasions. Yet I don't think the text supports limiting the use of refutation to just within the flock. And in any case, an understanding of error and how to interact with it is still a proper discipline of the gospel and therefore worthy of pursuit.

Confutation of other faiths? I'm unaware of anything that provides a useful model for that, Paul in the Areopagus notwithstanding.

Paul in the Areopagus withstands.

Take away him affirmatively teaching Christian doctrine, and he says nothing.

That's true, the Unknown God is the message, not just "don't worship idols." But he does use the refutation of the idols as part of the platform on which to proclaim his teaching.

Hypothetical question: How would you respond to a claim that the Law of Opposition justifies such an approach, since the recognition of evil manifests the good?

It's not a straw man if people have actually made arguments against us that relied upon what you are pleased to call the "misrepresented" versions. (And they have.)

Yes it is. That others do it is no excuse to do the same.

If you read my posts at either of the recent threads about Concerned Christians, you will find that I am quite aware of how deceptive argument can function in Anti-Mormonism (and not just misrepresenting Mormonism, but simply misrepresenting scripture). I do not approve of it and I consider it a sin. This of course does not mean anyone else has the right to do the same in return. Just because the other guy attacks a straw man, doesn't mean you haven't also.

Your examples seem to rest upon the assumption that it's all about you. (Hint: it isn't.) If missionaries respond in a certain way to the use of certain scriptures, it's because that's how they are used to those scriptures being prooftexted.

I realize that was why he used that argument. Obviously, he failed to respond to me because he was used to a different angle on that verse and realized it only too late. The reason I used this example is that it was a telling blunder: the missionary learned and then used a refutation. That is my entire point.

Sure, but we are not talking about an academic exercise in the history of ideas here. This is either an interfaith dialogue, or it is not. If believers don't present their own beliefs then it is not; and if it is not, then it is polemics. We don't do polemics.

Relgious teachings belong to the history of ideas, and can be studied and discussed academically. If I misrepresent, then point it out to me. I allow you the right to correct any error in my representation. If that is the case, then I am not dictating terms. This ban on "polemic" does not simply require that I not refute anything, but forbids me even to comment unless allowed.

Besides, an "academic excercise in the history of ideas" must engage the truth or falsity of those ideas or be sterile and valueless. I did not read Marx for academic interest. I did it to engage his ideas, some true and some false, and it was taught to me with the same objective. That's the only reason it's worthwile. Heaven help us from "academic exercises"!

I might mention a little blue book my wife showed me once which was called Missionary Reference Guide or Pocket Reference for Missionaries or something close to that. True to its title, the book contained an index of LDS teachings and relevant scriptures arranged topically. It also had as a glossary that outlined among other things some basic beliefs of other religions. I specifically recall entires on Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and Methodists, which I thought were accurate if incomplete summaries. If your rejection of polemics includes not only refutation, but any representation of other beliefs, do you approve of that book?

And around here, that happens a lot.

And it goes both ways. If you doubt it, or even if you don't, take a look at the exchange I had at the "Holy Garments in Tertullian" thread last week. I would be interested to know what you think about the representations made there.

Well, it comes back to what we have time for. We don't have time to teach other doctrines to our missionaries before sending them out; that is not our mission anyhow. In the last analysis, you are trying to tell us what should be important to us in the conduct of one of our core religious activities.

And you really shouldn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

Learning other doctrines matters because interacting with other ideas expands the relevance and power of the gospel. Consider my case. I have never prayed, or ever suspected that I should pray, for a testimony of the Book of Mormon (though I have prayed when reading it for other intentions). Why? Because I think God is to be believed, and my obedience gives me no right to ask Him to alter his doctrine. I do not htink this way because I have made any particular choice or harbor any bad will. To the contrary, I have no choice but to hold this position, because I see the evident meaning of Is. 43:10-11, which provides explicit instructions as to what my testimony (or witness) is supposed to contain. It seems, if I were wrong, that a charitable refutation would be a valid way to share the gospel with me. Otherwise, a door is left closed and a stumbling block allow to stand. If you will not interact with other ideas, which will involve learning and representing them correctly, then there will always be a part of society that your gospel will not reach.

It belongs to the virtue of hope to believe that people can be reasoned with.

[soren]

The First Vision is the best possible refutation of creedal Christianity extant. yahoo!!!!

I was raised Methodist. I never thought they were 3 in 1. I always thought they were separate, mom never told me. Then, I got the big intellectual presentation of the Trinity from a new "intellectual pastor". I could not follow his treatise nor could anybody else. They (traditional Christians) are hung up on maintaining monotheism so they developed this incomprehensible creedal statement. It is very deep........very drowning..

When the mormons came, the fog lifted.

The first 120 pages of Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity give and understadnable and lucid account of the Trinity that can raise even more fog.